House Soundly Defeats a Proposal On District of Columbia Statehood

By B. DRUMMOND AYRES Jr.,

Published: November 22, 1993

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21—
After years of often dispiriting struggle, supporters of statehood for the District of Columbia finally got a Congressional vote on the issue today -- and were soundly defeated.

But they immediately vowed to continue their fight after the House of Representatives, by 277 to 153, turned down a bill that would have transformed the District into the 51st state.

Statehood proponents said their success in getting committee hearings, a floor debate and then a vote on the bill was a great achievement in itself.

"I'm ready to declare victory," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting Delegate in Congress. "I had to go about getting those votes without being able to vote myself. That tells you something about the breadth and possibilities of our support."

Had the House approved the measure, passage by the Senate and the signature of President Clinton would still have been required before the District could have become a state.

Given the magnitude of the defeat, statehood proponents are not likely to get another vote anytime soon, even though they couched their argument in terms of extending full civil rights to the 600,000 residents of a nation's capital. Minion of Federal Government

District residents pay the same taxes as other citizens and are subject to the same laws. They may vote in Presidential elections and for their Congressional delegate, but the delegate has no floor vote and there are no Senators from the District. And though District residents elect a mayor and a city council, the District government ultimately answers to Congress.

In the final minutes of today's debate, Representative John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who was one of the early leaders in the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, tallied the rights that District residents have and do not have, then called for passage of the bill. "It is not right," he said, "that there is still an America where there is still some taxation without representation."

But Representative Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, countered, "The District hasn't even shown the ability to govern itself as a city, let alone as a state."

Then, in one of the bluntest speeches delivered during the statehood debate, he summoned up one of the images that many people around the country have of the city because of some of it recent travails.

"The District," he asserted, "is a liberal bastion of corruption and crime. Let's take it back and clean it up." No Appetite for the Issue

Many House members did not want to vote on the statehood matter today for various reasons, some economic, some geographic, some constitutional. Some opponents argued that because the District is defined by the Constitution, it would take a constitutional amendment to redefine its role in the union. But most experts agree that statehood for the District would require no more than the approval of Congress and the President -- the same requirements for any territory requesting statehood.

Despite the misgivings of House members about debating the issue, they yielded under constant imploring by Ms. Norton, who has established good relations with many lawmakers. However, only a handful of House leaders took part in the debate.

Senate leaders have talked now and again about holding hearings on statehood, but none have yet been scheduled.

As for President Clinton, shortly before today's House vote, he sent a letter to Capitol Hill in which he called for passage of the statehood bill, arguing, "It is fundamentally unfair that residents of the District are denied full representation and participation in our national life." He also dispatched some of his aides to Capitol Hill to lobby for the measure. Rowdy, Small and Democratic

The statehood bill was symbolically designated House Resolution 51. In defeating it, some opponents argued that the Founding Fathers could easily have made the national capital a state but instead envisioned it as a Federal enclave, totally free of outside governmental influence.

Other opponents argued that the city's mayor and council had yet to demonstrate that they could run a city well enough to meet Congressional standards.

"You can't have your city ask for troops to control your streets one week and come out and ask for statehood the next week," said Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican. "People won't take you seriously."

Other House members argued that the District was too small, geographically and economically, to be viable as a state.

And a few, mainly Republicans, argued that if the District, which is heavily Democratic, became a state, it would only add more Democrats to the House and Senate. Although Democrats agreed, not enough of them voted for the bill to carry the day for statehood.

In the vote, the bill was supported by 151 of the 258 House Democrats but by only 1 of the 175 Republicans, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.

"The fact that 151 Democrats would publicly say 'Yes' to statehood is a lot better than many people thought," said Mark Plotkin, a commentator on District affairs for WAMU, a local public radio station. "This has previously been a marginal issue, if that, to the point that legislators didn't even want to vote on it. It's not victory. But the issue now has national visibility, at least."

Photo: Eleanor Holmes Norton, center, the district of Columbia's nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives, vowed to continue her fight yesterday after the House voted down a bill that would have made Washington, D.C., the 51st state. With her at a news conference in Washington were the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the District's nonvoting delegate to the Senate, and Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly. (Michael Geissinger for The New York Times)